A Muslim Ban Is Logical, Moral, Even Libertarian

CNN’s Jake Tapper wanted to know if there was anything that could have prevented the murderous rampage, in Manhattan, by a Muslim immigrant, who had been recruited to live in America for no good reason. Once upon a time that was known as a rhetorical question. To ask the question would have been to answer it.

Broadcaster Mark Levin was no less obscurantist. You can’t bring certain individuals like the culprit, Uzbek Sayfullo Saipov, into the US, because … of their governments, Levin raged on Fox News. There’s no way to vet individuals from chaotic countries with ineffective governments.

Sure, you can vet immigrants. Find out which faith they practice.

Mark should have said, “You can’t bring Muslims into the US because of their faith. It predisposes them to violence,” which is pretty much what President Donald J. Trump stated during his 2016 campaign.

The president’s first limited immigration moratorium has expired. Let us hope that, following the murder-by-Muslim-immigrant of eight pedestrians along Manhattan’s West Side Highway—Saipov ran them over in a rented pickup truck—the president follows through, in the teeth of treasonous opposition, and expands the original “travel ban” beyond the six Muslim-majority nations to which it applied.

For a Muslim ban is neither illogical, immoral, or un-libertarian. Violent Jihad is not an ideology, as our Moderate Muslim friends keep calling it. Jihad is a pillar of a faith. That faith is Islam.
Christianity has just commemorated 500 years since its Reformation. Islam has yet to undergo a reformation; it’s still radical. Yes, there are many moderate Muslims. Perhaps a majority of them. But their existence and their moderate beliefs do not belie the radical nature of Islam.

The fact that there are moderate Muslims doesn’t mean there is a moderate Islam—or that these moderates won’t sire sons who’ll embrace the unreformed Islam. The data show that young, second-generation Muslims are well-represented among terrorists acting out almost weekly across the West.

Vetting will do nothing to stop second-generation Muslim Americans. These are American citizens or legal residents, as Saipov is, who are more prone to act out on their faith than their parents.

Religion is The Risk Factor, not chaotic countries-of-origin. It’s impossible to vet migrants not because of ISIS infiltration, or countries in disarray, but because Islam is a risk factor. Their Muslim faith puts Muslims in a security risk group.

Being Muslim is a predisposing characteristic, a risk factor, if you will, for eruptions associated with this religion. By “a risk factor,” I mean that Islam predisposes its believers to aggression against The Other. For in Islam we have a religion that doubles up as a political system that counsels conquest, not co-existence. (“Islam’s borders are bloody,” cautioned Samuel Huntington.)

A preponderance of Muslims will remain dormant. But, as we see almost daily in the West or in the Muslim world (where Muslim factions vie for religious dominance), a Muslim individual could be “triggered” at any time to act on his radical religion. So what if Moderate Muslims assure us Saipov was acting out-of-faith. That’s irrelevant to the irreversible outcomes.

It’s a distraction to claim, as The Moderates do, that the Jihadi is misinterpreting Islam, and that we must all do battle for the real Islam, a thing as elusive as bigfoot or the unicorn. Fact: A Muslim’s actions, be they in accordance with the real Islam or not—sanctioned theologically or not—could be deadly.

Consider:

Proposition 1: The faith of all Muslims is Islam.
Proposition 2: Islam teaches and sanctions some disturbing things like Jihad against the infidel.
Proposition 3: Some Muslims, practitioners of Islam, will be prone to act on teachings that are indisputably part of Islam.

While most Muslims are not terrorists, an unusually large number is willing to dabble in the lifestyle.

Policy is meant as a declaration of the common good. On average, a bunch of people that commit more faith-based murders than another group (say non-Muslim Chinese) is unsuitable as a source of immigration to the US.

In other words, all Muslims can thrive in America. But not all Americans will thrive in the presence of Muslims. Again, this is because the faith of Muslims is Islam. And Islam—the real or the impostor variety; it matters not—predisposes to violence. Some Americans will be hurt or die as a result of importing members of this militant faith.

More important, public policy is about aggregates. On the whole, it’s supposed to benefit, and certainly not endanger, the collective. Because of its immense potential to harm, libertarians believe the entity that executes public policy, the government, should do very little. And the duty of an American government is to safeguard its own citizens, not to welcome the world’s citizens.

Not only is American public policy not meant to benefit the world; it’s not a means to a diplomatic end—appeasing the Muslim partners of our crooked lawmakers. Law must minimize aggregate harm. (Sensible, reality bound libertarians will embrace Popperian minimal harm, not Bentham’s maximum happiness, for the most people.)

U.S. public policy must, very plainly, keep Americans safe AND ALIVE without aggressing against foreign nations. It has no obligation whatsoever to make Muslims whole or happy—especially if this could end up costing American lives, stateside.

Since humanity has no inherent, natural right to venture wherever, whenever—stopping Muslim mass migration into the U.S. not only makes good sense, but doesn’t violate humanity’s natural rights in any manner.

If someone admits they view the Quran as a holy book, they are vetted.. THE book instructs the whole lifestyle.. that is not freedom and is in DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE US CONSTITUTION..FACTS that liberals and FB police do not agree with..

H R Kelly Sr I am not a believer that islam is a religion of peace. But that doesn’t change the fact that of Trump’s policy. It is a policy against unvetted people from bad places, not muslim. Most happen to be muslim and I’d say that is what makes the places bad to begin with, because it excuses enslaving POW’s, makes women equal to animals, and allows for murder against non-muslims or even muslims from different sects. But it still isn’t a muslim ban.

Stop repeating the progressive’s lie like a stupid parrot.
It’s not a “Muslim ban”.
What it IS is not allowing people from countries with a history of terrorism and/or a unreliable data base into our country without proper vetting.

and surprisingly, or not as these things go, of the foreign born terrorist attacks on america, not one has come from a country on the list, which means it wouldn’t have prevented any of the attacks from happening. hope you sleep better tonight!

Ashley Brooke Kessler maybe Intel knows something that you do NOT.. let our government work, please.. the bans are logical.. I would say no more as evidenced by the mess in Michigan..THEY take over one county at the time and unlike the Amish, they do not allow any interaction with the outside world..THE NWO has produced a bunch of propaganda video about the peaceful Muhammad…oh well…

You don’t have a right to keep people out of your country. That is a power that the people have given the government. And they put strict limits on how the government can wield that power. One of those limits is that the government is not allowed to discriminate based on religion.

“Fact: A Muslim’s actions, be they in accordance with the real Islam or not—sanctioned theologically or not—could be deadly.”

Fact: Every single day a German person decides to commit murder somewhere in Germany. Fact: Every single day a Christian violates core tenants of the faith and murders another person. Hence, it’s logical – even libertarian – to make sure neither Christian nor German drives into Wisconsin. Seriously?

its so sad.. we have been brainwashed to a point that we can not ever be allowed to tell the truth.. MUSLIMS WORLDWIDE ARE TERRORIST… each country they get a toe hold in ends up with horrible attacks on the population by parts of that cult..
When someone or some group hates you, you are ignorant at best or plain stupid at worse for allowing them in YOUR HOME…

This whole article is trash and a prostitution of the term “Libertarian” simply to gain clicks. Would love to hear how Liberty Hangout Learn Liberty Liberty Friends Who Play Nice Liberty in the South feel about it.

Rob Kirby Jason is one of those false bravado tough guys that still needs the security blanket of national identity to help his own insecurities. Probably still claims to be an “American”. Don’t pull the pacifier out of his mouth. He might start crying.

Outside of the fact that a Muslim ban violates 1A, it would be exceptionally expensive to enforce, meaning more tax dollars. So no, “Liberty” Conservative, this isn’t libertarian. It’s immoral, racist, and unconstitutional.

Tsk. Tsk.
It is not racist as Islam is not a race.
Islam is not a religion, it is a form of social government.
Constitution does not address morality as such.
It is our country. The Constitution does not make us admit anyone we do not want to. Constitution addresses citizens, not non-citizens.

H R Kelly Sr You really need to expand your horizons and read up on politics. Get off of Facebook and Fox News, get off of mainstream media period. They’re all full of lies.
Not everybody who is against Trump is a liberal.
In fact people like Carson and Rob are liberty lovers who don’t bow to the state. We will resist Trump and fight for liberty because he is the enemy of liberty.
You all wouldn’t know liberty if it slapped you in the face.

Pew Research estimates there are 3.3 million Muslims in the US. How many Muslim terrorist attacks have there been in the US in the last few years? A dozen? Two dozen? We’re talking about 0.0007% of the Muslim population.

And you want to judge the entire population of Muslims based on that? You want to judge the religion based on that? Not only do you have no understanding of libertarianism (it’s an individualist philosophy), you have no understanding of statistics.

I suspect you’re inconsistent too. If more than 0.0007% of gun owners commit violent crimes, would you propose we ban guns?

Because immigration has benefits. If we stop immigration because of the <1% of the people who are bad, we won't reap the benefits that come with the 99+% who are good.

Conservatives often complain that liberals don't do a cost/benefit analysis of their policies, and so they end up doing more harm than good. Conservatives are doing the same thing with immigration: counting the costs while ignoring the benefits.

Tsk. Tsk.
It is not racist as Islam is not a race.
Islam is not a religion, it is a form of social government.
Constitution does not address morality as such.
It is our country. The Constitution does not make us admit anyone we do not want to. Constitution addresses citizens, not non-citizens.

You people need to change your name from The Liberty Conservative to The Trump Loving Conservatives.
You wouldn’t know liberty if it slapped you in the face.
We ACTUAL liberty lovers can concede that there is a problem in Islam that allows for radicalization. But we are individualists, something conservatives used to be. Which means that we judge the INDIVIDUAL, not the collective.
As the great MLK Jr said, not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.
We must exalt and promote the moderate muslims that try to appeal to their brothers and sisters and fight for the reformation of their religion.
Crime rates for second generation immigrants is SKYROCKETING. They commit crimes almost as much as native born Americans now.
Second generation muslims may commit crimes or become radicalized, but the children of any immigrant may commit crimes.
But bringing real world statistics doesn’t play to your neocon narrative, does it?
Learn liberty, bro. You guys don’t know anything about liberty.
That twat who wrote this is a paleoconservative, not a paleolibertarian.

This article is awful…plain awful. So awful, that I think its purpose is to undermine Libertarianism. But, as I type this, I see that the author identifies as a “paleolibertarian”, which is distinctly not the same as Libertarian due to the “conservative social values” aspect. That is, unless there can be something pointed out in the Constitution that specifically favors traditional Christian values.

Christianity went through a “reformation” because the bastards in the Catholic church put the church and their demon pope above God and the Holy Scriptures. Thus, the Catholic church was not acting according to God’s word. Hell, the bastards weren’t even letting anyone read the Bible. And they were murdering any REAL christian who put Jesus over their damn church. Islam, on the other hand, is different. In order for the Muslims to have a reformation, they would have to throw their damn Koran way. Because all that book teaches to to murder anyone who does not follow Allah (I mean Satan), and that it is “Godly” to deceive. Well, deception is weakness. If you need to deceive, you have weakness which means that we ALL have weakness. Well, Allah is known as the great Deceiver, and in the Koran he encourages his followers to deceive “if they have to”. This means that Allah has weakness and he encourages his followers to have weakness, too. Well, the God of Abraham/Jesus does not encourage anyone to deceive, and there is no need for Him to deceive or for any of His followers to deceive. Why would any Christians really need to deceive when they have God on their side? This is something that Muslims will never understand.

they are taught to lie to get the people to trust them. Even if they can somehow get elected in our government. Everything they do is for Islam so it’s ok as long as you can get them to trust you so in time when they come to have Islam all over the world. If you refuse to Islam then you will pay greatly.That is why they have started with our schools. You can see by the brainwashed college students what their professors have been teaching. But NO ONE is listening or paying attention

The same as letting anyone into the country: you’re getting the most adventurous, daring people in the world (immigrants are more adventurous and daring than homebodies). You’re getting labor, creativity, initiative, and new ways of thinking about things.

What if you were in an argument with a liberal about gun ownership? The liberal asks “what exactly are the benefits of letting people own guns?” The most compelling benefit you might suggest is that it protects against tyrannical government. So then the liberal says “prove it”. You’d actually have some trouble doing that – there are several non-tyrannies in the world that restrict guns, so you wouldn’t be able to make an compelling case.

As someone who believes in liberty, my philosophy is that people should be able to do anything they want, so long as they harm no one else. I think when the gov’t wants to restrict people’s activities, the burden of proof is on the gov’t to prove the restriction is necessary, not on the people to prove that liberty is justifiable.

But even though I think your demand is illogical and shows that you have authoritarian tendencies, I’ll play your game. There are about 3.3 million Muslims in the US. So far this year, there has been one, and only one, Muslim terrorist attack in the US. That’s 0.00003% of the Muslim population. According to a Pew study, 41% of US Muslims are employed, compared to 45% of the general public being employed (that’s 41% or 45% of all people, including children, which is why the number might immediately strike you as low). So while Muslims are lagging in this statistic, it’s clear that the bulk of them are contributing members of society.

Now it’s your turn: what’s your justification for keeping out a Muslim?

Simply based on pattern matching, why should we take the increased risk of loss of life? There is a historical precedent of Islamic terror in the US. Your justifications for Muslim immigration is pretty weak, it amounts to ” they are employed ” and “MOST don’t commit terrorism.” Seems like a pretty low bar you set there. I would rather take someone from Japan over Iraq any day of the week. Japan is a peaceful and orderly society whereas Iraq isn’t.

Jimmy, I have three main arguments: individualism, liberty, and statistics. You seem unmoved by any of those arguments. You are taking collectivist positions (judging people by the group you’ve assigned them to) and authoritarian positions (placing the burden of proof on people defending liberty, rather than on the government for restricting liberty).

your refusal to look at the decades of evidence , shows that you are unmoved by it. Just spouting “FREEDOM and LIBERTY ! ” are not arguments. Again why should Americans risk their safety by importing these people? Would you risk your safety by moving to and living in their nations?
The US is a sovereign nation. There is no right to immigrate to the US. Americans have a right to determine who enters the nation based on their interests, I.E freedom of association. Btw these people coming here arent doing it out of their own volition, they are incentivized via taxpayer programs.

your point was,
1. because they do jobs.
wow what great benefit and low bar you set for people to immigrate to the US, they work. It’s not like we don’t have a massive number of unemployed American that could do this labor, but some reason we need to import a potentially dangerous population(for what justification ?) to do this labor.
Seems like a high risk proposition.

You could save us both a lot of time if you just told me what criteria you’d accept for allowing immigration. I’m shooting in the dark here. I mentioned individualism and discovered you don’t care about that. I mentioned liberty and discovered you don’t care about that. I mentioned positive aspects of *any* immigrant’s personality and discovered you don’t care about that. I mentioned that they’ve become contributing members of society and discovered you don’t care about that.

There’s been only one Muslim terrorist attack in the US this year, compared to thousands of non-Muslim-committed murders. But your fear is so great that I haven’t found anything you care about more than that fear.

So, DO you care about anything else? Or is your fear the final word on the subject?

my list of standards for immigrants non prioritized
1. Come from an orderly peaceful , law abiding cultures.
2. Able to integrate into Western society. speak English, supports the constitution.
3. able to find quickly find employment , no mooching off of social welfare systems.

It’s a valid fear, but all fears must be kept in perspective. For example, you drive a car, even though it’s a very dangerous activity.

Your criteria:
1. So you would’ve kept out the Jews during WWII? In any case, you are judging people by their group, and you’re doing so in a logically invalid way: maybe immigrants from a bad society arre good people fleeing that society.

1. True, but that’s not the point. I’m questioning the logic of your criteria and instead of responding to my points, you’re changing the subject. Very interesting. When I first asked you about the Jewish refugees, it was a rhetorical question. But now, I REALLY want to know the answer: would you have turned them away?!

2. First, *anyone* who believes in God should believe that God’s law supersedes man’s law. Christians too. Second, many Muslims are comfortable with the Constitution in the same way that many Christians are comfortable with the Constitution. Third, there’s a fair number of Christians who are not comfortable with the Constitution.

you cant be serious, poll most Chritians in Europe and America , ask them if they believe that the bible should be enforced law. The majority would say no. WHereas with muslims they believe in sharia law, which has been implemented in several nations.

There are plenty of Christians who want prayer in the schools, creationism in the schools, government displays of the Ten Commandments, and bans on abortion and gay marriage. I’ve met American-born Christians who go so far as to say that they want a theocracy.

A Pew study showed that in Turkey, only 12% of Muslims want Sharia law. In Kazakhstan, 10%. In Azerbaijan, 8%. Admittedly, in most Muslim-majority countries, the numbers are far higher. But nowhere is it 100%, so you can’t make these blanket statements about all Muslims.

You haven’t answered my question about the Jews in WWII. Your silence is deafening.

Yeah, that doesn’t help your case, Jimmy, because you made the mistake of making a blanket statement about all Muslims. All I needed was to find one counter-example to prove you wrong, and I found 100s of millions. As for liking the selective nature of the countries I mentioned: I was completely upfront about that.

I’m still waiting to hear what you would’ve done about the Jews in WWII and what you think about gun control. I’m beginning to think that you’d be unable to defend your opinions on those subjects.

You realize what the concept of the majority is? right? Again, The MAJORITY of the Muslims from the poll you first mentioned support sharia law.
I’ve already answered the Jewish WW2 question to my satisfaction.

Yes, and if you had said “the majority of Muslims support Sharia law” I would not have disputed that. But that’s not what you said.

“I’ve already answered the Jewish WW2 question to my satisfaction.”: You mean when you said the US had no obligation to accept them? We (as individuals and as a country) do lots of things we’re not obliged to do, so that’s not really an answer. But I’m going to make a (tiny) leap to a conclusion and assume that you would’ve kept the Jews out. Since no one thinks those Jews were a terrorist threat, I suspect your terrorism argument is just a cover. You have a different reason for excluding Muslims that you haven’t been forthcoming about.

Finally, I’m still waiting to hear your position on gun control. You’re hesitant to clearly state your opinion on the Jews and you’re hesitant to state your position on guns. You don’t come across as a man who has the courage of his convictions.

What does gun control have to do with the topic of immigration?
Again , for the jewish ww2 situation, if i was in charge at the time , i would have made an assessment if letting them was in the interest of my nation and if not , no entry. Again this globalist narrative that the US is the worlds policeman and must run around saving all the poor unfortunates is insane.

Gun control is relevant because of the concerns you’ve expressed about terrorists.

You’re prepared to violate the First Amendment – by having the gov’t discriminate against people based on their religion – in order to prevent even a single terrorist attack. So I want to know if you’re prepared to violate the Second Amendment in order to prevent the thousands of murders committed in this country.

You’ve dismissed any benefit that immigrants might provide and scorned my arguments about liberty, in your pursuit of zero terrorist attacks. So I want to see if you’ll dismiss any benefits that guns might provide and scorn arguments about liberty in a pursuit of zero gun deaths.

And if you’re not willing to violate the Second Amendment, I want to understand why not.

And while you never wrote the two words “all Muslims” next to each other, you made it clear that you didn’t want any Muslims admitted into the country, and you based that on blanket statements that you made about Islam as if they applied to every Muslim.

“You’re prepared to violate the First Amendment – by having the gov’t discriminate against people based on their religion – in order to prevent even a single terrorist attack. So I want to know if you’re prepared to violate the Second Amendment in order to prevent the thousands of murders committed in this country.”

Constitution doesnt apply to non citizens on foreign soil. How is denying someone access to the US a violation of the First Amendment?

The Declaration of Independence says that all men are endowed with rights by their creator. The Bill of Rights follows that same philosophy. Nowhere does the Bill of Rights say “the government grants this right to citizens”. Instead, it says that Congress will not violate the [God-given] rights of the people.

The Founding Fathers knew the difference between “citizens” and “people” and they used “people” in the Bill of Rights. And they didn’t say “people can do this”, they said Congress can’t pass certain laws. And one of the things Congress can’t do is discriminate against religion. Anywhere in the world, Congress isn’t allowed to do that. We the people simply did not give the government the power to discriminate based on religion.

Of course the threat is real. I never said otherwise. But I’m not ready to sacrifice liberty and individualism over it. Y’know, there’s danger involved in giving the government the kind of power you’re talking about too, and that’s another cost you don’t seem to be considering.

BTW, what’s your position on gun control? Given the number of shootings in this country (including mass shootings), and your apparent zero tolerance for a single attack, may I assume that you think guns should be banned? If not, why not?

how do you know that you are getting the most adventurous , daring etc etc? just because of the act of leaving one place and going to another? It could be that they simply moved from a nation with low standards of living too high standards of living.

Why was James Madison so critical of democracies? Moreover, why was he

About us

The Liberty Conservative is an online political magazine devoted to the vision of less government and more liberty in achieving true prosperity for all. We intend to accomplish this by informing and educating our readers on our core principles of free markets, limited government, traditional values, and personal freedom.

All content herein is the property of The Liberty Conservative, and may not be copied in any way without expressed permission from the owners. All contributed content represents the views of the contributor and does not necessarily represent the views of The Liberty Conservative.